The Cat Chapter 2 Early Appearances: The Missing Cat in Pre-Sage Jewish Sources

Locating the Traces of “Shuner” and “Shunra” in the Bible and in the Jonathan Translation as an Introduction to Understanding the Cat’s Demonic-Prey Status in the Days of the Kings

A cat walks around the Jerusalem market of Beit Rishon. Image prepared by DALEE
A cat walks around the Jerusalem market of Beit Rishon. Image prepared by DALEE

In vain, and perhaps not in vain, we will search for evidence of the presence of the cat in the Bible, in the Bible. The Bible was written, as is well known, out of chronological order and by priestly writers with a unique and clear historiosophical and historiographical, historiological consciousness and tendency, at least unlike other literary-social groups. And thus, we will have difficulty, as with other subjects that find expression in the Bible, in getting to the root of things, their context and their interpretation-their ancient interpretation and, of course, offering conclusions that differ from the accepted one. However, we are forced to compromise with the above-mentioned reality and extract the most from the least. 

It is clear to us that the writers of the Bible, whoever they may have been, saw cats before their eyes, since the first cats arrived in the land via the ancient Egyptian garrisons approximately during the second millennium BC, that is, approximately during the time of the patriarchs and their successors, the judges. The reason for the absence of the cat in the biblical sources, which is very different from many animals, reptiles, flying creatures, land and sea creatures, and more of this kind, is not at all clear, and it is possible that the cat in its ancient historical "form" was perhaps perceived as a small leopard and its like. 

And again, as mentioned, we will search in vain for the word "cat" in the Bible. Not so in the Tanach and Talmudic literature, and certainly in the Midrashic literature, when the word "cat" appears in these literatures, or in its ancient form, i.e. "shuner" or "shunra", i.e. in the "Ha" of the Knowledge. However, it is clear to us from ancient, literary, epigraphic, and archaeological findings that the ancient cat, whatever its name may be, was present in the ancient Middle East. And from this, what remains for us to do is to locate, in its entirety and in its essence, with all the problems inherent in the matter, the cat and its "pre-cat" name, the "pre-shunra". And I do not base the matter, the search for traces of this, of the "what-is-its-name-cat" only on the basis of capricious pretension, but on the basis of its appearance in the parallel ancient cultures, and especially the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, which is supported by clear and realistic archaeological and epigraphic findings such as figurines, paintings, and certainly Physical findings. It should be noted here that tens of thousands of mummies/embroideries of cats have been found in Egypt and that it is explicitly known that the cat was considered a sacred animal in ancient Egypt. Likewise, the ancient reality of the Land of Israel indicates a clear presence of Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian authorities in the ancient territories of the Land of Israel. 

It is possible, and without stumbling historiosophically and historiologically, that the name "ts'im" or "islands" as a term is mentioned several times in the Bible and is identified and defined, according to scholars, as a cat. Although the identification is questionable (perhaps because of the sound that emanates from the cat's throat, a kind of "meow" at the time?!). In the book of Isaiah (21:22) it is said that "there (in the City of David after the expected destruction) ts'im will lie down and fill their houses with cicadas (predatory night birds), and the daughters of ostriches will dwell there, and the goats (goats identified with the forces of darkness and evil) will dance there." And in the next verse we read: "And the isles will be in his widows, and the jackals in the pleasure palaces..." (ibid. XNUMX). The connection between jackals and "islands" may indicate animals of prey - "islands". Perhaps wild cats.  

Without stumbling into an archaeological-literary quagmire, it can be assumed that the word "fleet" is not related to the multitude of ships, of vessels, and the same can be said regarding the word "islands."  

From these verses, it is possible to hypothesize, with some hesitation and hesitation, that these are wild cats, or those that were considered a transition between the wild cat and the domestic cat, since these are described as scavengers looking for remnants of food in areas affected by disasters, such as after a destruction, although it is possible, and indeed advisable, to hypothesize the opposite, since their presence in devastated and ruined areas, say after a siege, may indicate their presence in that city before its destruction, and so on. 

It should be noted that in the above-mentioned Jonathan translation of Isaiah (22:XNUMX), on the words: "And he answered and said, 'I will scatter cats'" - the phrase/translation/interpretation appears - "And they will scatter cats." Perhaps the above passage cannot support any scientific hypothesis, but in any case, the above-mentioned translation/interpretation, which is somewhat later, cannot be ignored. In particular, the term "cat" appears there in the clearest sense, and in this case, in accordance with the biblical verse, the name appears in the plural, with the Aramaic suffix - "cats." 

It is clear that we are dealing with the word/term/phrase "cat," which chronologically is later, meaning much later than the "schooner" – that animal that is somewhere between the ancient cat and the "modern" one at the time. And let's not forget that in between... many hundreds of years have passed. 

In Isaiah elsewhere (14:XNUMX) we read: "And the fleets met the islands, and the goats cried out to each other, but there he calmed Lilith and she found rest." And again, the expression "fleets" and "islands" as different, animal (feline?) creations were associated in supernatural, unnatural, even demonic, somewhat enchanted contexts. What we can perhaps assume is that in this era cats were being referred to as wild creatures, ones that had non-human connections attached to their bodies. 

A similar image appears in the Book of Psalms (14:39): "You (God, in your power) crush the heads of the whales, and give food to the people for the fleets," when those "fleets," seemingly feline, are somewhat ferocious. And in Jeremiah (v. XNUMX) a similar image appears of the destruction and ruin of those nations that harmed Israel, as it is written: "Therefore fleets shall dwell in the islands (under the enemies of Israel) and shall dwell in it (in Babylon, in the kingdom of the Chaldeans) the daughters of Jaanah; she shall no more dwell forever, nor shall she dwell from generation to generation." Here too, the "fleets" and "islands" appear as God's messengers to symbolize the destruction of Israel's enemies. 

A cat or a skunk, or some wild creature, somewhat demonic, yet God's messenger, against the enemies of Israel, this, that is, the cat, appears in the literature of the people of Israel in the later period, i.e. the days of the prophets and in the Psalms, not as a domestic cat, nor as a field cat, but as an animal of prey. This is roughly, although the issue of dating is quite problematic, approximately somewhere from the eighth century BCE. And let's not forget that the written biblical composition took place much, much later, at least from the days of Ezra and Nehemiah onwards, namely in the fifth century BCE, i.e. from the beginning of the Second Temple period. 

We can therefore assume that this was the period when the cat shed its ancient, somewhat wild costume and donned the alternative one in preparation for its entry into the new, settled, somewhat domestic world of "catness."  

In any case, it should be noted that the name/term/cat will be examined linguistically and historically in the continuation of this research. 


   More of the topic in Hayadan:

   

14 תגובות

  1. Hello Chabadnik and thank you for your response. I would be happy if you spiced up your response and supported it with some historical contexts, even if they are controversial. A linguistic and verbal study would not harm the matter at all. And as a hint to you, I say that there is a rational and contextual difference between the word "fleet" and "fleet" and it is enough for the wise to hint and the wise to... to imply

  2. My response to Aila will be brief. Your response is insulting. Tali Kora is between your eyes and a toothpick between your teeth. I would be happy to deal with any comment and response provided it is not casual, general, unsubstantiated, and the like. In any case, one should not confuse a naval fleet, which barely appears in the sources, with fleets in some animalistic context, and in general, I expressed in my confessions article regarding the connection between "fleets" and cats that it is narrow but not completely illogical. And you are a complete idiot.

  3. Rivki, with all due respect and respect. Despite the fact, and perhaps because of it, that the sources of information that can be extracted from the Bible, from the Tanakh, are definitely problematic. However, one should not compare biblical sources with later sources, including the interpretations of the sages, about which there has also been scientific, research controversy regarding their reliability and the reliability of their conclusions. However, one should choose sources that are chronologically closest to indicating the presence of the earlier event, despite the interpretations regarding them, and yet, complete nonsense and as I have commented many times regarding the lack of clarity in biblical interpretations.

  4. Sorry, but the article is really misleading. All the verses you quoted were taken out of context.
    For example, fleets actually refer to fleets of ships.
    And the name cat was given by the first man, a cat from the word "swaddle" meaning "to swaddle" (to wrap its feces).
    You have a lot to learn from true Judaism, not biblical stories with invented interpretations.
    We have enough great commentators, we don't need secularists to interpret the meaning of the words.

  5. So not factually based
    It is unclear why it was published here and whether anyone actually read the article before publishing it.

  6. The connection between the people of Tzimiskes and the Amalekites, and only from this combination, seems completely imaginary and has nothing to do with reality, no matter how difficult it may be, as far away as the East from the West.

  7. In a chapter of poetry attributed to King David and his son Solomon, it is written that a cat says: I will pursue my enemies and overtake them, etc.

  8. From the words "to the people of the land" they took the name Amalek.
    That is, a type of shark.
    The Bible, which has dozens of animal names, is not
    A nature book, which is why the cat is not mentioned in it.
    The carob tree is not mentioned in it either.

  9. Moreover, why specifically nematodes? And perhaps specifically another type of production?

  10. First, what is the biblical linguistic connection between "sailors" and marmots; second, why specifically marmots and not some other cat-like creature, and so on?…

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to filter spam comments. More details about how the information from your response will be processed.